Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Researchers at the UCL Institute of Ophthalmology have discovered a new method of observing changes in the retina which can be seen in Parkinson's before changes in the brain occur and the first symptoms become evident.
Using ophthalmic instruments that are routinely used in[sic] optometrists and eye clinics, the scientists were able to use the new imaging technique to observe these retinal changes at an early stage. This method, published in Acta Neuropathologica Communications, would allow earlier diagnosis of Parkinson's and also could be used to monitor how patients respond to treatment. The technique has already been tested in humans for glaucoma and trials are due to start soon for Alzheimer's.
"This is potentially a revolutionary breakthrough in the early diagnosis and treatment of one of the world's most debilitating diseases," said Professor Francesca Cordeiro, UCL Professor of Glaucoma & Retinal Neurodegeneration Studies, who led the research. "These tests mean we might be able to intervene much earlier and more effectively treat people with this devastating condition."
Parkinson's disease affects 1 in 500 people and is the second most common neurodegenerative disease worldwide. Symptoms typically become apparent only once over 70 percent of the brain's dopamine-producing cells have been destroyed. The condition results in muscle stiffness, slowness of movement, tremors and a reduced quality of life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:26AM
Confidentiality doesn't exist when doctors are required by law to report suspected terrorists.
You risk your life simply by going in for a routine checkup these days when anything the doctor finds can be used against you in court and could result in immediate jail time.
In this legal climate am I going to get my eyes checked for Parkinson's? Fucking hell NO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:33AM
It's just a simple imaging of your retinas, what's to fear?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:41AM
Yeah don't make idle smalltalk about how you hate America and offer to share your favorite beheading videos.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday August 22 2016, @02:22AM
There are more subtleties. Suppose your boss is a dickhead and you go in for a checkup for stress-related ailments and jokingly tell your doctor that you want to murder your boss. The kinds of MDs who aren't making their careers writing prescriptions for weed and working for charity in African shitholes are most likely Right-leaning and can take a joke, but all it takes is that one wrong time or person to get you flagged, and then it's in your medical record for good. You need not provide any biometric data to get flagged in that sense.
And that's not even seeing a shrink. If you are, chances are that there's a lot more damning stuff in that record.
It's pretty obvious why that's a bad idea - If you're a treatable nut, it makes you less likely to be honest in seeking treatment, possibly leading to disastrous consequences later -- especially if you don't want to lose your gun collection. Even if you're not a nut, it allows the judgement of your doctor to have negative and unfair effects on your life.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:04AM
If you want to make a joke about killing your boss, you have to do it in a designated comedy setting, and you have to be a designated comedian, otherwise idiots will not understand that a joke was made. Sometimes not even then, e.g. Michael Richards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:28AM
If they had this a few years back, we might have Linda Ronstadt still doing concerts and making new recordings.
I am happy they found this but sad that it took this long.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:45AM
There needs to be a limit on how long washed-up has-been celebrities can extend their music careers, kind of like how it's impossible to pursue an IT career beyond age 30.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @02:57AM
If you're talking about one-hit wonders who want to sit on their asses and collect royalties for some bit of luck they had 4 decades ago, I agree.
I'll even make some allowances for that bunch if they actually go out on the nostalgia circuit and PERFORM for the folks who want to see them.
Ronstadt wasn't anything like that.
She was successful at everything she tried--and that was a broad spectrum that covered decades.
(Do you recognize the name Stone Poneys?)
She did Rock, Country, Americana, Trio (with Dolly and Emmylou), Canciones de Mi Padre, and Jazz with Nelson Riddle.
She kept working and trying new stuff until her illness took away her ability to control her breathing (sustained notes, vibrato).
While she was able to work, she never stopped being awesome.
...or did I miss the sarc tag again?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:11AM
Quiet you, I'm waiting for a greybeard to declare, "but I'm working in IT and I'm over 30!"
Sure I remember the Stone Poneys. Hell I might as well toss them on my playlist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @11:09AM
I've been working in IT for over 30 years you insensitive clod!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @11:07AM
Ronstadt had the best all-around singing voice of her generation (and the next). Perfect pitch and unbound versatility resulted in something for everyone. A wonderful talent who is sorely missed.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Monday August 22 2016, @02:28AM
At present, there is no cure for Parkinson's. There is treatment, which is to use drugs to replace the dopamine the dopaminergic cells are no longer producing. But the drugs aren't nearly as very effective as one might wish. When dosage gets high, they have side effects. And despite careful pilltaking on a regular schedule, the passage through the digestive track is complicated enough that the amount of the drug that gets into the brain is random. Sometimes the patient ends up in a zombie like state, sometimes subject to random large movements (that can destabilize and cause falls and bone breakage), and sometimes she ends up blessedly normal for a while.
The random movements can be enough to cause sea-sickness, even on land.
It's not clear that early detection will prolong useful life.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:10AM
From what I've read, everything you wrote is correct, but the story can be much more positive. For example, after being written off by her original doctor as having "age related tremors", my mother still felt that something wasn't right. She was having too much trouble moving and doing anything that required hand coordination, and symptoms were getting worse week by week. Nothing much else was wrong with her, only med she was taking was a blood thinner after heart valve repair surgery a few years back.
The next doc looked at various things and after a few months suggested that she try the Parkinson's meds--the dose was increased slowly, ramped up over a couple of weeks. One day she got to a useful dosage, the change was remarkable, and I had my mother (mostly) back as she was a few years ago. We all recognize that this isn't a cure, but for now it's given her back a useful life. And the best thing is that she's smiling again.
If this retinal scan diagnosis was available, she could have been diagnosed a year (or more) earlier, instead of being written off by her original doctor (who, speaking politely, we think wasn't trying very hard). Could have saved a year of very low quality of life and being very frightened, as in, "What's happening to me?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:59AM
Her symptoms were quite obvious. There's no medical condition called "age related tremors". "age related tremors" = I don't want to help.
So I don't think the retinal scan would help if you had this sort of doctor interpreting the results of the retinal scan. The scan is just another source of data, not a magic "You've got this disease", someone still needs to interpret it. The real problem was her doctor.
Go look: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/840971 [medscape.com]
There was no significant difference in macular thickness or volume, and color vision, intraocular pressure, anterior segment, and fundus were all normal in the two groups.
However, on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography, the retinal nerve fiber layer and the ganglion cell inner plexiform layer were thinner in the Parkinson's group than in the control group.
In addition, on multifocal electroretinogram, a decline in retina electrical activity was seen in the Parkinson's group. And contrast sensitivity was significantly lower in the Parkinson's group than in the control group.
These findings cannot be used to diagnose Parkinson's disease because many other conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica, and Alzheimer's disease, can produce the same findings, she pointed out.
So the retina is slightly thinner but someone still has to interpret the results.
The above citation is not the actual research study linked by this story, for that you can see: http://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40478-016-0346-z [biomedcentral.com]
And you'll find it's more about rosiglitazone than a new way of detecting Parkinsons.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday August 22 2016, @04:14AM
The earlier the detection the better quality data there is to use in research. Being able to identify a cluster of Parkinson's patients only a few years after the fact would be a huge improvement in the study of the disorder as you'd have a greatly improved ability to collect any and all data that might be relevant to causing Parkinson's or that might activate it.
It also means that there's more opportunities to study the early stages of the disorder when it might be possible to slow it's progress or possibly halt it completely.
But yes, it's not clear that early detection would make much of a difference, certainly not with the current generation of drugs and therapies. But, even in the worst case scenario, it would allow people to make sure to get to those bucket list items while they're still doable and try to make the best of the time remaining.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Monday August 22 2016, @05:36AM
Considering we aren't even certain of the cause, that's no surprise. I'm hopeful that in the next 100 years that we will develop complex neural network systems that can be implanted and work as a replacement for parts of your brain. Naturally, putting it in the right place will require other technological advancements. Unfortunately, the best we can do now is try to simply figure out what causes it to begin with and then maybe muck around with chemicals in hopes of fixing the cause.